English
中文1. Introduction
According to Guest (1987), HRM is a long term strategy that is integrated with business strategy and general management of an organisation. It proposes senior management to carry out cultural leadership to create a vision and work environment for employee commitment, innovation, and development, and relies on line managers to accomplish the HRM functions. The organisational structure that is desirable for HRM is decentralised, flexible and organic, and pursues a non-union and individualised employee relationship (Guest, 1987). The ultimate purpose of HRM is to win the employee commitment and release their best performance for the organisation. A ‘Healthy Organization’ is the one which has effective performance, and provides an environment that sustains the health and well being of people inside or outside the organization in terms of both physical and psychological (Newell, 2002).
All the above concepts are pursuing suitable employee relations through HR functions. Theoretically, there are two major perspectives on employee relation styles: the unitary perspective and pluralistic perspective. Scholars and practitioners (e.g. Fox 1974, Purcell 1987, Story and Bacon 1993, and Guest 1997 and 2000a) have different perception and interpretations on these two perspectives. By critically examining these theories, there will be a clearer picture on how HR functions can contribute to the development of a stable workforce and a healthy organization.
Theoretical review on styles of employee relations and management style
Under the unitary perspective, organisation is a coherent and integrated team; the staff are united by common goals and directed by a single source of authority; and there is one focus of loyalty (Fox, 1974). Conflict is regarded as aberrant and caused by incompatible personalities, poor communications, and troublemakers. There is no place for trade unions in the unitary school as management supposes to be trusted and effective enough to intervene and consults various issues in the organization.
The pluralist school recognises the difference of interests of the organisation’s stakeholders. The balance between different interest groups will be achieved through bargaining and competition. Managers have to accept the diversity condition, and perceive that conflict is inevitable and not always negative. Compare to unitary view, power and authority in the pluralist perspective act as a media to attain ‘balance’ and ‘allies’. Therefore, trade union is considered to be a natural expression of group interests, and managers should work with unions or other representatives to achieve efficient relations.
Further Fox’s contribution, Purcell et al. developed a typology that in depth explains the potential style of HR management and employee relations.
Illustration 1 Management Style
Instead of ‘unitary’ and ‘pluralist’, Purcell et al. use the term individualism and collectivism to conceptualise management systems. The first dimension referring to management system that values individual’s right and interest, and seeks fulfilment of individual’s achievement at work. The later is expressed by the existence and acceptance of union or non-union-based collective bargaining or participation (Legge, K. 2005). Instead of seeing them as mutually exclusive as Fox did to unitary and pluralist frames of reference, Purcell consider individualism and collectivism as ‘two faces of managerial belief system toward employee’ (Legge, K, 2005, p75). Five management styles have been identified according to the two management systems: traditionalist, sophisticated paternalist, consultative, constitutional and standard modern (see Illustration 1). Purcell’s two dimensions are latterly criticized by Marchington and Parker’s (1990) study, and the study of Story and Bacon (1993) develop criteria that further unpack the two dimensions in much more detail.
According to Legge, K. (2005), the traditional style and sophisticated paternalist style are all unitary oriented as they both resist trade union. However, their reasons for resistance are very different due to their different perception about the employee. The traditional style regards employees as a factor of production or cost to be minimized, thus the existence of trade unions is considered to be turbulent and negative.
In contrast, the sophisticated paternalist style views employee as the organization’s most valuable assets, and emphasis the importance of staff loyalty, commitment and dependency. Some HRM ‘best practice’ approaches have been developed to serve this purpose, for instance, Pfeffer (1998; in Marchington and Wilkinson, 2005) identifies seven ‘best practices’ that covers aspects such as internal labor market, reward, training and development, employee involvement, etc. and these approaches suppose to be effective in achieving high staff commitment. In this case, the existence of trade union is unnecessary since management have embedded ‘caring’ policy through the HR functions in the organization. Marchington and Parker (1990) claims that, this style has the elements of both unitary and pluralist school, but Legge, K (2005) believes that the unitary elements are in a predominant position in this style. According to Guest (1987) as have been referred to in the introduction, this type of management style is more suitable to a human resource management system.
When the collectivism score is high, there will be a consultative and constitutional style of management. Practices of consultative styles are similar to the sophisticated paternalist style, yet its perception on trade union is quite different from the later style. The consultative style recognizes unions, and bargaining and consultation with unions are taken for granted when pursuing individual commitment. This style is viewed as with strong pluralist characteristics. The constitutional style accepts the existence of trade union but based on that it is natural and unavoidable. Its practice and attitude to employee are similar to the traditional style.
Last but not least, there is another style called the standard modern, which has been identified by Purcell and Sisson (1983). Rather than being a style, according to Legge, K. (2005), this is a situational approach that has no consistent policy about the recognition of trade union – the recognition normally depends on the history of the organization or introduced by strategic alliances. There will be no consistence strategy on employee relations within the whole organization, because this issue is viewed as the responsibility of divisional management. Under such kind of circumstances, the external product and labor market condition plays an important role in adjusting the balance in the management-union relationship.
One of the major concerns from Marchington and Parker (1990) on the two dimensions is that they did not find prove that management’s attitude to employee (e.g. commodity or valuable asset) has anything to do with whether the management system is collectivistic or individualistic. Another doubt is that the acceptance or recognition of union institution dose not equal to the management’s commitment to collectivism. Managers may adjust their attitude toward unions in line with the dynamics inside or outside the organization. For example, when technology development requires radical change in the organization’s labor force in order to survive in market competition, managers may deliberately undermine the power of trade union to manage the change process effectively.
To summaries briefly, the major difference between the five management styles lies on the attitude towards trade union and employee. Such differences will in turn influence the choice of HR functions and practices. Some HR practices are generally regarded as effective in maintaining stable workforce and healthy organization, and will be discussed in next section.
Examples of effective HR functions
In the view of sophisticated paternalist style and consultative style, people are the most important asset of organisation. This notion can be demonstrated by Edwards’s ‘structured antagonism’ (2003a, p17; cited in Marchington and Wilkinson, 2005, p32) which claims that the only opportunity for organisation to obtain surplus value is given by works. In this sense, the level of worker’s willingness to offer such opportunity will directly influence on the performance of organisation, i.e. the ‘right’ attitude will generate the ‘right’ performance (West and Patterson, 1998). Therefore, management practices which can attain the commitment from workers to offer hard work and their best competences will be considered as effective and valuable for an organisation in any sector. From this point of view, high commitment HRM is appropriate in achieving such a goal.
High commitment HRM is also known as ‘best practice’ HRM, or ‘high performance work systems’, the notion is that ‘a particular set of HR practice has the potential to bring about improved organisational performance for all organisations’ (Marchington and Wilkinson, 2005, p72). Guest et al (1997, 2000a) suggest that, with some central fundamentals, the more HR practices that are in place, the better the whole package will work for the organisation. This idea is also known as bundles of HR practices.
Plentiful HRM scholars have demonstrated the effectiveness of high commitment HRM (HCM, also known as ‘best practice’) for business performance (Marchington and Wilkinson, 2005; Pfeffer, 1998, cited in Marchington and Wilkinson, 2005, pp79-84; Thomson, 1998; West and Patterson, 1998). The research of West and Patterson (1998) demonstrated, ‘HR practices explained nearly one-fifth of the variation between the companies in productivity and profitability’. Marchington and Wilkinson (2005, p85) also find out that high commitment HR practices enhance workers job satisfaction, trust and commitment, without work intensification and high level of stress. One typical example in practice is the work-life-balance approach.
As it is defined by Clutterbuck, D. (2003, p8), it is ”A state where an individual manages real or potential conflict between different demands on his or her time and energy in a way that satisfies his or her needs for well-being and self-fulfilment.” In another word, if we assume work and non-work commitments as two domains, ‘work-life balance’ would be a status where the two domains have both obtained equal weight.
This concept is being recognized and adopted by more and more employers as it is an effective reaction in front of the extensive changes of the world of work- the aging of the labour force, increasing number of lone parents and career women, the 24/7 society, deregulation, the increased awareness of corporate social responsibility, the evolvement of new legislation, etc. According to the CIPD survey, these changes have led to two most frequent concerns of employees: long hour and work intensity (CIPD). They feel that they have to sacrifice their non-work commitment in order to fulfil the workloads, and they are getting more aware of their rights. In this case, employers need to find out solutions to maintain and motivate their staffs so that productivity and profitability of their organizations can be secured. Compared with financial reward and promotion, work- life balance practices are more effective in terms of motivation. They tend to be soft and caring, which taking account of employees’ needs and well-being, and are more favourable by existing and potential employees, especially new graduates (Edwards, P. and Wajcman, J. 2005; Clutterbuck, D. 2003).Even though there is no evidence of direct relationship between work-life balance culture and organizational profit (Clutterbuck, D. 2003, p14), the business benefits of WLB is still highly acknowledged. The common practices and benefits are illustrated in Table 1.
However, some authors point out that the effectiveness of work-life balance could be aggrandized (Torrington et al, 2005). Resistance comes from different level of the organization due to different individual situation, there could be restricted access for everybody, and a class distinction may emerge from the WLB police itself or its implementation.
To a larger extension, high commitment HRM faces similar challenges in terms of requirements for implementation. The most significant problem is the lack of consistency in the implementation of HCM system. The intention of pursuing employment security – which is recommended by Pfeffer (1998; cited in Marchington and Wilkinson, 2005) – sometimes is in contradiction with recruitment and selection; employee involvement may be undermined by management control. In practise, fragmentation and ‘pick and mix’ approach, ad hocism, pragmatism and shortermism are commonly found, and managers usually encounter difficulty to fine core and linkages between the bundles (Marchington and Wilkinson, 2005). According to this problem, an integrated and long-term oriented HR plan will be supportive. This plan must in line with the overall business and HR strategy of the organisation and clearly identify the core in the bundle adopted.
Moreover, long-term plans must have preparation for turbulent and dynamics, forces from the legal and institutional aspect and pressures from clients and industry bodies are all strong enough to reshape the organisation’s existing HRM policy (Marchington and Wilkinson, 2005). The dynamic of labour market may alter the talent pool, and in turn change the recruitment and selection methods of the organisation; market competition may force the organisation to reduce remuneration and benefit for its employee. Therefore, organisation should learn constantly from its own or other organisation’s experience and be ready to alter its HRM policy and strategy to the direction that ‘best’ fit its people and benefit.
Conclusion
Table 2 illustrates in general what workers’ perceived inputs and rewards are. It is believed that the fulfilment of the perceived reward will contribute to the maintenance of stable and effective workforce in the organisation. There are many routes to accomplish such kind of fulfilment, and it will depend on how management perceive employee and manage the relations with them. As have been reviewed in this paper, there are unitary and pluralist perspectives (Fox, 1974), and individualism and collectivism dimensions (Purcell et al.) as major direction for further research in management style. The choice of HR practices and the implementation of HR functions should be in consistence with the existing management style and operational condition in the organisation. It is also believed that, the two perspectives/dimensions should not be concerned as mutually exclusive, because managers will face more dynamic condition in practice than in theory and normally a combination (or ‘bundle’) of various approaches may be more appropriate for resolving work-related problems.
